If they did indeed pocket the money I think that would be easy to prove. They have this nice new and big building in AZ, they've been paying people who worked there, etc., etc. Somehow, someway, things flew out of control and if much of an effort was made to stem the flow of blood ($$$), it didn't work. Running a potential big business is work, and whoever was involved just couldn't handle it. Apple "may" end up owning the company, at least this plant... but courts can really grind slowly. This was a real shame.
Apple already owns the plant. they did the whole time. They were leasing it to GTAT.
Apple also already owns the equipment too, because that was the collateral for the GTAT loans.
All Apple needs now is to hire whatever employees GTAT lays off (and hire away the top talent that doesn't get laid off).
its over for GTAT, Apple should get the remaing inventory(and all IP) and then get Corning to resume operations...
Otherwise, this grand Adventure into an American run Sapphire plant is over!.
Apple should not have a hard time sourcing Sapphire in China...
BTW, Tim Cook does not suffer fools gladly!... only under duress (see Samsung, lol) so it is "bye,bye" GTAT.
Apple will keep running that huge Arizona sapphire plant without the GTAT name. Why wouldn't they, unless you think they entirely scrapped whatever plans they had for it?
Apple can just hire the employees that were going to do so anyway. It seems like I am the only one on these threads suggesting that this is the likely outcome. Perhaps that means that I am the crazy one and it ain't gonna happen. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.
So, is this good or bad for the stock? Bought @ $.90, not sure if I should dump it all or wait for some sort of miracle spike. Is there ANY scenario where the stock would recover?
How about: This is a well planned bluff by GTAT in which Apple will succumb to because it's more cost effective for Apple to pay to keep their investment afloat which would then shoot the stock up to between 2 and 3 dollars per share.
(NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PREDICTION)
I wonder what has happened to the sapphire boules, wafers and substrates ...
Apparently, GTAT did not meet specs/schedule for some sort of finished goods (still not convinced that it's iPhone display covers).
The unfinished goods could/should have some value for further processing with less-stringent specs or for other uses (camera lenses, SOS semiconductors, jewelry, optics ...).
In the early days of semiconductor manufacturing, they would often manufacture to top mil-qual specs. The rejects, were then retested at lower specs ... e.g. run acceptably at a lower clock speed, lower density of storage ... Or several rejects could be used in combination for a totally new product ...
A temperature-compensated zener diode is such a product -- where several inferior diodes are combined into a product where each component offsets the others imitations -- resulting in a high-quality product that performs consistantly across a range of temperatures.
These were found money -- basically creating valuable products from the scrap bin.
IDK, but it seems like this concept could similarly apply to sapphire rejects.
I wonder how this "winding down" would effect Apple's sapphire parts for the iPhone and iPod (e.g. camera cover, touch ID cover).
AFAICT, the sapphire parts were (and are) supplied by other sources than GTAT. Assumably the GTAT production was targeted an new uses.
As many have posted, display covers for iPhones, iPads or any large surface, likely, are not practical -- too heavy, too expensive, too brittle (easily cracks if dropped).
A display cover for the Apple Watch makes more sense -- likely, a watch won't be dropped ... and the weight, cost issues should be proportionally less with the smaller display.
GTAT Blames ‘Burdensome’ Apple Terms in Sapphire Halt
WAAAAAAAAA THEY DID THE SAME THING THAT THEY DO WITH ALL THEIR SUPPLIERS AND WE FAILED AND EVERYONE ELSE DIDN’T THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY APPLE’S FAULT WAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAA THEY DID THE SAME THING THAT THEY DO WITH ALL THEIR SUPPLIERS AND WE FAILED AND EVERYONE ELSE DIDN’T THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY APPLE’S FAULT WAAAAAAA
I know, right!
As if they did not know, going into this agreement, what high standards Apple would have, or what was in the agreement. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi was involved and insisted on signing the agreement so they could know what was in it LOL
I wonder how this "winding down" would effect Apple's sapphire parts for the iPhone and iPod (e.g. camera cover, touch ID cover).
From what I've read, there's many sources for small sapphire parts, but not larger parts like screen covers. It was these larger parts that GT failed at manufacturing to Apple's standards.
From what I've read, there's many sources for small sapphire parts, but not larger parts like screen covers. It was these larger parts that GT failed at manufacturing to Apple's standards.
Apple already owns the plant. they did the whole time. They were leasing it to GTAT.
Apple also already owns the equipment too, because that was the collateral for the GTAT loans.
All Apple needs now is to hire whatever employees GTAT lays off (and hire away the top talent that doesn't get laid off).
The big question is did the money already spent pay for the complete installation of all equipment. If it did then the plant is good to produce sapphire. If it can't make enough then either improve/refine/de bottleneck the process or build additional capacity elsewhere.
It also is boggling that they would fund and build a foundry of this size without first proving that the process could produce the required specified product.
Could this be why the Apple Watch is not launched until next year? Time for Apple to find someone else.
The number of units will be a fraction of the iPhone, which also use sapphire parts. Plus, the sapphire only goes in the edition model of the watch, which will be priced somewhere between $350 and $17m. If GTAT is their current and only sapphire supplier, they'd have iPhone issues too; if they have another supplier, it's no big deal.
The number of units will be a fraction of the iPhone, which also use sapphire parts. Plus, the sapphire only goes in the edition model of the watch, which will be priced somewhere between $350 and $17m. If GTAT is their current and only sapphire supplier, they'd have iPhone issues too; if they have another supplier, it's no big deal.
Wasn't suggesting that GTAT was the only supplier. But perhaps Apple was leaning on them for the Apple Watch as that is a larger surface overall compared to the two surfaces the iPhone uses. If GTAT was to supply the Sapphire for the Apple Watch, then Apple would not have put in orders with any other suppliers. Then to have the GTAT meltdown just now coming to light, Apple might've been in a bind to find another supplier that quickly.
The number of units will be a fraction of the iPhone, which also use sapphire parts. Plus, the sapphire only goes in the edition model of the watch, which will be priced somewhere between $350 and $17m. If GTAT is their current and only sapphire supplier, they'd have iPhone issues too; if they have another supplier, it's no big deal.
Wasn't suggesting that GTAT was the only supplier. But perhaps Apple was leaning on them for the Apple Watch as that is a larger surface overall compared to the two surfaces the iPhone uses. If GTAT was to supply the Sapphire for the Apple Watch, then Apple would not have put in orders with any other suppliers. Then to have the GTAT meltdown just now coming to light, Apple might've been in a bind to find another supplier that quickly.
When you think about it, the need for a sapphire display cover is less for an Apple watch than for other devices ...
An Apple Watch sits alone on your wrist -- it isn't sharing a pocket with coins, keys, nail clippers ... It isn't poked at with anything harder than a finger ... It doesn't get dropped ... Really, how many times hav you dropped a watch? A phone?
Gorilla Glass would seem to be a better choice for the iWatch display cover [surface].
The biometric sensors on the back of the watch are another story -- in a sense, they are cameras, and well suited for sapphire sense covers.
I caught a dead cat bounce after the 80% drop, made a 40% return and sold. The company is toast. Dunno how it'll play out, but it's too bad for the employees, I'm sure they could get things in shape for the 6s versions, but a year is a long way off...
The big question is did the money already spent pay for the complete installation of all equipment. If it did then the plant is good to produce sapphire. If it can't make enough then either improve/refine/de bottleneck the process or build additional capacity elsewhere.
It also is boggling that they would fund and build a foundry of this size without first proving that the process could produce the required specified product.
Comments
Sorry if this has already been suggested, but why doesn't Apple just buy them?
Because they don't need to. Apple already has everything they need from GTAT...
Factory? Check.
Furnaces and other necessary equipment? Check.
Rights to use the IP? Check.
Apple can just hire the people that GT is going to have to lay off, and the "acquisition" is complete.
If they did indeed pocket the money I think that would be easy to prove. They have this nice new and big building in AZ, they've been paying people who worked there, etc., etc. Somehow, someway, things flew out of control and if much of an effort was made to stem the flow of blood ($$$), it didn't work. Running a potential big business is work, and whoever was involved just couldn't handle it. Apple "may" end up owning the company, at least this plant... but courts can really grind slowly. This was a real shame.
Apple already owns the plant. they did the whole time. They were leasing it to GTAT.
Apple also already owns the equipment too, because that was the collateral for the GTAT loans.
All Apple needs now is to hire whatever employees GTAT lays off (and hire away the top talent that doesn't get laid off).
its over for GTAT, Apple should get the remaing inventory(and all IP) and then get Corning to resume operations...
Otherwise, this grand Adventure into an American run Sapphire plant is over!.
Apple should not have a hard time sourcing Sapphire in China...
BTW, Tim Cook does not suffer fools gladly!... only under duress (see Samsung, lol) so it is "bye,bye" GTAT.
Apple will keep running that huge Arizona sapphire plant without the GTAT name. Why wouldn't they, unless you think they entirely scrapped whatever plans they had for it?
Apple can just hire the employees that were going to do so anyway. It seems like I am the only one on these threads suggesting that this is the likely outcome. Perhaps that means that I am the crazy one and it ain't gonna happen. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.
Thompson
I wonder what has happened to the sapphire boules, wafers and substrates ...
Apparently, GTAT did not meet specs/schedule for some sort of finished goods (still not convinced that it's iPhone display covers).
The unfinished goods could/should have some value for further processing with less-stringent specs or for other uses (camera lenses, SOS semiconductors, jewelry, optics ...).
In the early days of semiconductor manufacturing, they would often manufacture to top mil-qual specs. The rejects, were then retested at lower specs ... e.g. run acceptably at a lower clock speed, lower density of storage ... Or several rejects could be used in combination for a totally new product ...
A temperature-compensated zener diode is such a product -- where several inferior diodes are combined into a product where each component offsets the others imitations -- resulting in a high-quality product that performs consistantly across a range of temperatures.
These were found money -- basically creating valuable products from the scrap bin.
IDK, but it seems like this concept could similarly apply to sapphire rejects.
AFAICT, the sapphire parts were (and are) supplied by other sources than GTAT. Assumably the GTAT production was targeted an new uses.
As many have posted, display covers for iPhones, iPads or any large surface, likely, are not practical -- too heavy, too expensive, too brittle (easily cracks if dropped).
A display cover for the Apple Watch makes more sense -- likely, a watch won't be dropped ... and the weight, cost issues should be proportionally less with the smaller display.
It's rude to refer to either of them that way ...
... Then there's SWAG -- Scrientific Wild-Assed Guess
Then it is a presumption, not assumption
http://grammarist.com/usage/assume-presume/
GTAT Blames ‘Burdensome’ Apple Terms in Sapphire Halt
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/gtat-blames-burdensome-apple-terms-in-sapphire-halt.html?cmpid=yhoo
WAAAAAAAAA THEY DID THE SAME THING THAT THEY DO WITH ALL THEIR SUPPLIERS AND WE FAILED AND EVERYONE ELSE DIDN’T THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY APPLE’S FAULT WAAAAAAA
WAAAAAAAAA THEY DID THE SAME THING THAT THEY DO WITH ALL THEIR SUPPLIERS AND WE FAILED AND EVERYONE ELSE DIDN’T THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY APPLE’S FAULT WAAAAAAA
I know, right!
As if they did not know, going into this agreement, what high standards Apple would have, or what was in the agreement. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi was involved and insisted on signing the agreement so they could know what was in it LOL
"Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit”
I wonder how this "winding down" would effect Apple's sapphire parts for the iPhone and iPod (e.g. camera cover, touch ID cover).
From what I've read, there's many sources for small sapphire parts, but not larger parts like screen covers. It was these larger parts that GT failed at manufacturing to Apple's standards.
From what I've read, there's many sources for small sapphire parts, but not larger parts like screen covers. It was these larger parts that GT failed at manufacturing to Apple's standards.
Calling Foxconn... Hello, Foxconn?
Could this be why the Apple Watch is not launched until next year? Time for Apple to find someone else.
The big question is did the money already spent pay for the complete installation of all equipment. If it did then the plant is good to produce sapphire. If it can't make enough then either improve/refine/de bottleneck the process or build additional capacity elsewhere.
It also is boggling that they would fund and build a foundry of this size without first proving that the process could produce the required specified product.
The number of units will be a fraction of the iPhone, which also use sapphire parts. Plus, the sapphire only goes in the edition model of the watch, which will be priced somewhere between $350 and $17m. If GTAT is their current and only sapphire supplier, they'd have iPhone issues too; if they have another supplier, it's no big deal.
Wasn't suggesting that GTAT was the only supplier. But perhaps Apple was leaning on them for the Apple Watch as that is a larger surface overall compared to the two surfaces the iPhone uses. If GTAT was to supply the Sapphire for the Apple Watch, then Apple would not have put in orders with any other suppliers. Then to have the GTAT meltdown just now coming to light, Apple might've been in a bind to find another supplier that quickly.
When you think about it, the need for a sapphire display cover is less for an Apple watch than for other devices ...
An Apple Watch sits alone on your wrist -- it isn't sharing a pocket with coins, keys, nail clippers ... It isn't poked at with anything harder than a finger ... It doesn't get dropped ... Really, how many times hav you dropped a watch? A phone?
Gorilla Glass would seem to be a better choice for the iWatch display cover [surface].
The biometric sensors on the back of the watch are another story -- in a sense, they are cameras, and well suited for sapphire sense covers.
I caught a dead cat bounce after the 80% drop, made a 40% return and sold. The company is toast. Dunno how it'll play out, but it's too bad for the employees, I'm sure they could get things in shape for the 6s versions, but a year is a long way off...
Almost nothing about this situation makes sense.